Bradford 1

Natalie Bradford

March 19, 2021

Genre Identification Project

It has been over a century since The New York Times Book Review, or NYTBR, was first

published in 1896 as a weekly supplement to The New York Times. This publication, assembled

with the intention of providing readers with a collection of insightful and interesting critiques of

current fiction and nonfiction, has become one of the most influential publications showcasing

the genre of the book review. John Frow defines genre as “a set of conventional and highly

organized constraints on the production and interpretation of meaning” (10). Genre is, for Frow,

“a typified action” undertaking the work of mediating between a social situation of recurrent

form and “the text which realizes certain features of this situation” (14). Book reviews, such as

those published by the NYTBR, are a body of texts which do such work and which exhibit the

genre dimensions outlined by Frow, including situation of address, thematic structure, and

rhetorical function.

The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill, in an article designed to offer assistance to

students writing book reviews, describes the genre as an “essay that offers a critical perspective

on a text” and identifies three common features that a book review should include: a concise

summary, critical assessment, and indication of whether the audience would appreciate the text

being reviewed (“Book Reviews”). Applying Frow’s ideas on genre to book reviews provides

insight into the social action which publications such as NYTBR are intended to bring about—

beyond merely recommending novels, NYTBR works to create a space of engagement for a

literate community. A better understanding of how the “critical perspective” of a book review is
 Bradford 2

formed according to genre dimensions makes clear the communal concerns addressed by book

reviews.

Situation of address

The situation of address for a book review published in the NYTBR is a privileged one in

which an “expert” critic offers a subjective opinion to an inexpert, but not disinterested,

audience. When choosing an appropriate critic to write a particular review, according to editor

Gal Beckerman, the editorial staff for the NYTBR seeks someone “who knows the subject matter

or the themes (of the book being reviewed) well” (Delkic). Unlike the “anonymous speaker” of

Frow’s headline, the authors of these reviews are often names well-known by their audience—

Stephen King may be asked to write a review for a new thriller novel, or Bill Clinton might be

asked to review a biography of Ulysses S. Grant (Frow 10, Delkic).

Other authors of book reviews may be notable scholars or artists—individuals who base

their claim to expertise not only on reputation and fame, but who have done significant work

within similar fields to the authors being reviewed. Katie Roiphe is a credible reviewer for the

memoirs Assume Nothing, by Tanya Selvaratnam, and Consent, by Vanessa Springora as Roiphe

has been involved in scholarly conversations on sexual assault since publishing her book, The

Morning After, in 1994 and recently published her own memoir, The Power Notebooks. James

Lasdun, as the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship in Poetry, can offer compelling insight into

the formal merits of Trio, a novel by William Boyd, in his review “Brighton Follies.”

Another such reviewer is Radhika Jones, who authored “Almost Human,” a review of

Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel Klara and the Sun in the NYTBR. Jones is not only the editor-in-chief of

Vanity Fair, she also has a doctorate in comparative literature from Columbia. Jones performs

her expertise rather conspicuously as she frequently references the conventions of an Ishiguro
 Bradford 3

novel with the confidence of someone who has put tremendous thought into the writer’s oeuvre

—she mentions “the kind of…line we rely on to get our bearings” in his novels, the “stilted

affect that so often characterizes Ishiguro’s prose,” and the “quintessential Ishiguro chord” struck

by the handling of his favorite subjects. Jones complements a deep knowledge of the “artistic

heights of his past achievements” by referencing statements made by Ishiguro outside of his

literature, such as in his 2017 Nobel lecture or in a 2008 interview for The Paris Review. Jones

portrays herself not only as an academic well-versed in comparative literature, but as an

authority on Ishiguro’s novels, placing herself in a privileged situation of address not unlike that

which might be taken by Bill Clinton or Stephen King.

Frow claims that a speaking position may “bring with it a certain kind of authority and

moral force,” an argument which does seem to hold true for the position held by reviewers;

though reviews are presented as subjective opinion, many would balk at arguing with Stephen

King over what makes a good thriller and it would take an audacious reader to contend against

Jones’s well-supported insight (10). The authority conveyed by this speaking position is rather in

line with Quintillian’s definition of an orator —a good man (or at least an informed public

figure) speaking well is typically accepted as credible.

For Frow, the “different framings” of texts “govern the different salience of the formal

features and…dimensions of genre,” including the text’s situation of address. The framing of a

book review within the pages of The New York Times lends itself to the construction of a

privileged situation of address. Pamela Paul, an editor of the NYTBR, discusses the “rigorous

journalistic standards” upheld by The New York Times. These standards, including

trustworthiness and newsworthiness, may help to shape how readers approach a review given its

framing. The New York Times is a notable newspaper with a reputation for high caliber reporting;
 Bradford 4

appearing within the pages of this periodical gives a review a weight which it would be without

were it to appear elsewhere. The New York Times imparts some of its prestige onto the review

and thereby elevates its speaking position. A reader who understands that NYTBR reviews

undergo similar vetting for conflicts of interest and fact-checking as is practiced at other desks in

the paper is likely to give greater credence to the review’s trustworthiness (Symonds). The

rigorous standards cited by Paul also give the reader a sense of the reviews’ importance. Paul

claims that books to be reviewed are selected based on their “newsworthiness” and their “interest

and relevance to Times readers” (Symonds). If this is the case, readers of these book reviews may

trust not only their credibility, but their significance as well—The New York Times does not print

drivel so they would not review a book that was without merit. A reader may comfortably infer

that there is something important to be gained from discussion of the book being reviewed

because The New York Times has said that this is the case. The situation of address tells readers

that what they are reading is trustworthy, that it comes from someone whose opinion is valuable,

and that the book and themes being discussed are relevant to themselves and of some import in

society at large.

Thematic Structure

The thematic structure of a genre, according to Frow, ought to draw on “a set of highly

conventional topics or topoi” and project a “schematic but coherent and plausible world from

these materials” (9). Frow credits a text’s thematic content and structure with building a

“schematic world” or a “limited piece of reality” (7). Conventional topoi such as those

enumerated by Frow from his headline are implemented to great use in book reviews. In a genre

predicated on avoiding spoilers, being able to communicate successfully through general but
 Bradford 5

evocative topics is crucial and typically imbued with “moral ethos,” a quality that Frow

considers thematic content to be infused with (8).

The conventional topoi employed by reviewers often function as an example of how

uptake occurs between different genres; the book reviews lift the thematic content of the novel

out of the primary text and repurpose it to be used as a tool of critical assessment. This

emphasizes the bi-directional nature of the social context in which book reviews are written as

they must engage with the original texts and authors they are reviewing in addition to their

targeted audience. For example, Roiphe relies on discussion of thematic content in order to write

a critical perspective on Springora and Selvaratnam’s memoirs. It would be strange for her to

critique someone’s telling of their own life and neither author would likely respond well to such

a review, but by focusing on the “familiar feminist truisms” and powerful narrative structures she

is able to partake in a deeper, more relevant conversation with the works (Roiphe).

The uptake of a novel’s themes is also important in “Rocky Island Home,” Hillary

Kelly’s review of Susan Conley’s novel Landslide. Kelly discusses themes at play in the novel—

the “shimmy” of a mother raising sons through “the gantlet of 21st-century masculinity” and the

impact of environmental and industrial collapse on working-class communities—in order to

construct the schematic world of the book and reveal the moral ethos that informs her review. By

playing upon the topoi already constructed by the novel, Kelly situates herself in conversation

with Conley. This move is also necessary to achieve the rhetorical function of the review in

regards to its broader audience; if Kelly gives away the entirety of the novel with particular

details, there would be no need for her audience to read the book but if she does not position her

critique relative to the novel’s subject matter, her review must be so broad as to be meaningless.

Structuring her review along lines drawn by conventional topoi allows Kelly to negotiate this
 Bradford 6

difficulty. Frow argues in his discussion of the structure of implication that invoking background

knowledge “sets up…complicity with the reader” (10). This usage of topoi seems to function

similarly to this conception of the structure of implication—the invocation of themes which

reviewer and audience have a common understanding of enables a discussion to be had despite

the discrepancy between Kelly’s expert position and the audience’s assumed relative ignorance.

Kelly’s moral ethos can likewise be understood through her deployment of conventions. Her

evident approval of Conley’s treatment of motherhood, for example, positions her differently

than a more conservative critic, who might have rejected Conley’s depiction of a woman tolerant

of her son’s illicit behavior, or a more radical critic, who might take issue with Conley’s decision

to allow her heroine’s maternal concerns to overshadow her career. By lifting the topoi which

she would like to discuss out of the novel and repurposing them in her review, which discusses

fiction but is not itself fiction, Kelly reifies the ideologies which originated in Conley’s

imagination, turning what was once a symbolic representation of motherhood into a critical

discussion and moral judgement.

Lasdun makes a slightly different use of thematic structure in his review of Boyd’s novel.

Lasdun largely puts aside concerns of moral ethos in favor of discussing the aesthetic and artistic

maneuvers made by Boyd in the novel’s crafting. The topoi which Lasdun invokes are less

material than those considered by Kelly; he instead expresses interest in Boyd’s “sustained

preoccupation with the tension between fate and chance, art and accident, script and

improvisation.” The consideration of these facets of the novel prepare the reader of his review

for a very different analysis than that performed by Kelly and invites his audience to consider the

schematic world he has created through a formal lens. Lasdun lifts the structural choices made by

Boyd and, in naming them thus, makes them real—he gives a shape to the world crafted in the
 Bradford 7

novel by so carefully delineating the limits of his own world of what he wishes to consider

within his review.

Rhetorical Function

To fulfill the genre dimension of rhetorical function, Frow argues a text must be

“structured in such a way as to achieve certain pragmatic effects” (10). The pragmatic effects

which book reviews seem most directly intended to accomplish are entertaining readers, selling

copies of the publication, and recommending books to consumers, functions which are evinced

by the structure of the reviews. By describing the function of a book review as a text intended to

“‘inform and enlighten,’” which should be “‘informative, authoritative, honest and engaging,’”

Paul emphasizes the first function of the book review, to entertain its audience and provide them

with information on a book in which they have an interest (Delkic). This in turn affects the

second function of the review, to sell copies of the publication. In writing reviews to be

enjoyable, and avoiding “boring or insular” writing, the NYTBR broadens its audience to include

more casual readers, as does emphasizing the “newsworthiness” of the reviews (Delkic). The

third function of book reviews—selling copies of the books reviewed—is of a lesser degree of

importance than the first two, as reviews are not simply native advertisements, but it is still

present in the reviews’ structure, as evinced by the note on The New York Times website: “when

you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate

commission.” The structuring of reviews to more heavily favor praise over criticism indicate an

attempt to positively recommend the novels being reviewed, as does the substance of the

critiques offered. The critiques, such as those offered in Kelly’s “Rocky Island Home” are often

sparser and less concrete than the praise. Kelly’s criticism is limited to the suggestion that

Landslide is, in places, “undercooked” and “flat-footed” yet she insists that her praise is “meant
 Bradford 8

earnestly.” Similarly, Lasdun dismisses his own critique of Trio—a wish “that the mission had

been a touch more dangerous”—as “churlish.”

There are other purposes that book reviews serve which are more social than economic.

This genre operates within literary circles as well as journalistic ones and, as such, they are

useful in directing conversations about contemporary literature. Reviews in the NYTBR

acknowledge the labor which authors put into their work even if they don’t always celebrate that

labor without reservation. They create a sort of canon-of-the-moment in compiling a set of works

that they deem valuable, thus setting a standard for what “high culture” literature looks like in

the current age. Roiphe demonstrates this function when she discusses Francoise Sagan in her

review of Springora’s Consent; comparing Springora to the twentieth-century canonical writer

gives the sense that there is some standard of excellence in artistic appreciation that runs through

their works and which may be noted by an astute reader. The community of NYTBR readers,

whether they accept the judgements offered on individual books or not, have internalized the

idea that these reviews as a whole offer meaningful insight into the books they review and that

the books being reviewed are themselves worthwhile. Collectively, through the genre of book

reviews, readers, reviewers, and authors are brought into the conversation of what makes

literature significant in the period in which they are writing and reading.
 Bradford 9

Works Cited

“Book Reviews.” The Writing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/.

Delkic, Melina. “The Magic in a Book Review Pairing: [Book Review Desk].” New York Times,

Late Edition (East Coast), New York Times Company, 11 Oct. 2018, p. A.2.

Frow, John. “Approaching Genre.” Genre, Routledge, 2014.

Jones, Radhika. “Almost Human.” New York Times Book Review, New York Times Company,

Mar. 2021, p. 1, 20.

Kelly, Hillary. “Rocky Island Home.” New York Times Book Review, New York Times

Company, Mar. 2021, p. 8.

Lasdun, James. “Brighton Follies.” New York Times Book Review, New York Times Company,

Jan. 2021, p. 8.

Roiphe, Katie. “Survivor Network.” New York Times Book Review, New York Times Company,

Mar. 2021, p. 9.

Symonds, Alexandria. “Book Reviews Without Fear or Favor: [Book Review Desk].” New York

Times, Late Edition (East Coast), New York Times Company, 25 Apr. 2018, p. A.2.